The Iraq War Is The Wrong Answer

The Unjustified War on Iraq

Saddam Hussein is a tyrant. His actions have caused fear and hate among the Iraqi citizens he ruled and people around the world. He ruled by oppression, committing atrocious acts such as testing chemical and biological weapons on the innocent civilians of his own country. During his time in power, he blatantly violated nearly all the United Nations laws that pertained to his country, and mocked those who attempted to control his violent actions. But in attacking Iraq, the United States has behaved little better than the powerful villain Saddam Hussein. Not only were civilian casualties massive, but countless soldiers died fighting and in the aftermath of the battle. Even worse, this entire war was built of false premises and misleading evidence. Going to war with Iraq was unjust, unnecessary and illegal.

Was the attack on Iraq justified under the United Nations (UN) Charter? The Bush administration certainly felt that its interpretation of the articles pertaining to self defense in the UN gave ample justification for the war. According to many United States officials, attacking Iraq was legal under the UN Charter, Article 51, which states: nations have the "right of, individual or collective self defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." Richard Perle, a member of the Bush administration, used Article 51 as a basis for the legality of an attack on Iraq, saying, "I don't believe it does violate international law. We certainly have a right, not conferred, but acknowledged, in the United Nations Charter, Article 51, to defend ourselves" (Guntzel). This interpretation of Article 51 was not shared by many other countries within the UN. These differences in opinion led to endless debates as to whether the US was protected by Article 51, since, according to this article, such defensive measures are only legal when an "armed attack" occurs.

No armed attack had occurred when the United States started bombing Baghdad. In fact, there is no evidence that Iraq was even planning to attack the US. When the United States launched its unilateral attack against Iraq, it was nearly impossible for Iraq to attack the United States due to its inadequate army. Iraqi military personnel lacked equipment and training, long range missiles were non-existent, and Saddam did not posses the means to transport his military to the US. (Guntzel) According to The Nation magazine, "the moth-eaten Baathist regime, with its poorly equipped soldiers and unenthusiastic citizenry, was in no shape to threaten the United States or cause world turmoil"(Pollitt).

There are additional UN laws that the United States violated. Article 2 in the UN Charter outlaws attacks such as the war on Iraq, "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independency of any state in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." Since George Bush went into war with Iraq without the support of the UN, and took away the political independence of Iraq, he was breaking Article 2 (World News). Article 41 and 42 were also broken in the mad dash to war. The Bush administration claimed they had the right to attack Iraq unilaterally because Saddam Hussein's regime was violating a set of strict new UN guidelines. According to John Negroponte, United States Ambassador to the UN, "If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution (resolution 1441) does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself from the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant Untied Nations resolutions"(Zunes). But Articles 41 and 42 state that the Security Council (an exclusive governing body within the United Nations) alone can decide to launch military action on a country that has disobeyed United Nations resolutions. Although the US is a member of the Security Council, there was not a majority vote to allow the US to attack Iraq (Zunes).

The Bush administration has insisted on its right to unilaterally attack Iraq. To justify this end, the administration either ignored or conveniently reinterpreted UN articles or resolutions. It is no wonder that the vast majority of the international community did not support the Bush administration's conclusions. International opinion was that the attack on Iraq was illegal under the international laws of the UN.

After 9/11 the United States has had legitimate concerns about the threat of terrorism. This concern became a driving force in the war on Iraq. Since Saddam Hussein is such a tyrant, it is quite easy to draw lines from him to such terrorist organizations as Al-Qaeda. There is, however, no evidence for this easy connection, and, according to the Miami Herald's reporter Ivan Eland, the war would increase the threat of terrorism to the US,

"Occupation of an Islamic country by the United States could be a recruiting poster for Islamic terrorists. We should remember the world-wide mobilization of Islamic radicals to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. An invasion of Iraq would play right into Al-Qaeda's hands. Terrorists hope for an excessive, intrusive response by their adversary so they can recruit more supporters" (Eland). In addition to the claim that Saddam Hussein may have been hosting and supporting groups such as Al-Qeada, the United States war against Iraq was based on the premise that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) including biological agents such as anthrax, and, according to Bush's State of the Union Address, uranium that Iraq had sought to purchase from the country of Niger in Africa. This statement was not only misleading, but completely false. From before the time that the speech was made, it was known that there was no uranium dealing between Niger and Iraq. The American people were led to believe that a nuclear attack from Iraq was an additional possibility.

According to CBS news, the CIA knew the true facts. "The White House ignored a request by the CIA to remove a statement in President George Bush's State of the Union Address that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for its nuclear program"(World News). That is to say, the president had fair warning that the facts he was to present were false, and he and his advisors took no action to remove them from the speech (World News). Now, after months of searching the many weapons facilities of Iraq, nothing has yet been found that supports evidence that Iraq had WMDs, save several scattered documents and some